M/s. Ocean Breeze Luxury Spa Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 37'187 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

IV/s. OCEAN BREEZE LUXURY SPA, Rep by Y. Srinivas Rao, S/o. Late Y. Satyanarayana, Aged 48 years, Occ. Business, O/o. Plot No. H-1 , CMC Enclave Pearl Village fvlain Road, White Field Summit Fourth Floor, Kondapur, Serilingampally, RangaReddy District

¶9

.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad

¶13

a The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate

¶14

4 The Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, Hyderabad

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notification no. (L&O)/M4/314012O1O, dated 30.06.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Article 14, t 9 (t ) (g) of the constitution of lndia, contrary to the^provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli and consequently set aside the same against the petitioner, in the interest of^justice and^grant such other necessary relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and^proper in the circumstances of the case

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in th: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C,r rrt may be pleased to suspend the impugned notification No. (L&O)/M41314012( 10, dated 30.06.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, pe rd ing disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.S.N.MURTHY Counsel forthe Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDERABAD

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE N.V.SHRAVAN KTIMAR

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.37187 of 2025

¶24

Date:11.12.2o25

¶25

Between:

¶26

M/s Ocean Breeze Luxury Spa,

¶27

Rep. by Y. Srinivas Rao.

¶28

...Petitioner

¶29

AND

¶30

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal SecretarJ/, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.

¶31

..,Respondents

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal

¶34

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:-

¶35

"...to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notification No. (L&O)/M4l3I40 l2OlO, dated 30.06.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal,

¶36

EFr,!f

¶37

arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Article 14. 9^{(1) (g) of} the Constitution of India, contrary to the^{prov.: ir:rns} of^the Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli and cons,t^quentlyset aside the same against the^{petitioner..."}

¶38

Today, when the matter is taken up for h^{:aring, learned} counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar^{:ircumstalces,} this Court disposed of uide order dated^{t8.O9.2021 in} W.P.No. 16287 of 2010 and batch, the conclusive^p rrtion^{of which} reads as under:-

¶39

In uieu of the submissions o/ leanted^c, unsel for both sides, these Wit Petitions ore disposed^c '^{in terms} of order dated 04.O2.2O21 in I.A.No.1^o.r 2020 in W.P.No.24410 of 2020, permitting the petitio;t )rs to run the massage centres, subject to maintaining^c record in the register to be maintained by tLrc^massc.1 e centres containing the dates of ubits of the anstol ers, their nomes and ueiftable addresses together uitl,, .he phone numbers, so as to enable the police to conlot . them on the aspect of the request 'o the ouner/ manager/ operator of the mossage^, entres to prouide for the help from the opposite sex. \rthe4 it shall be open to any police ofJicer not belou'^t ,-e rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police attaclrcd to any^pol :e station to ueifg once in a uhile such records mainta;.r ed bg the massage centres and he shall also be at libert 1to^uerify as to tohether the particular cltstomer has^.so, cited ang such special seruice from tLrc massage centre^t r noL It is also open to the police to take appropru te oction depending upon the result of any such ueiJ;.t ation ond also considering the fact that wlrcther he cross massoge seruice prouided to the custonl :rs is ln professional manner or not. Police are also zntitled to inuestigate into cimes, if ong, reported^rtr ainst tLLe petitioners. Petitioners ore also directed not.^r:' keep the

¶40

main door of the premises closed, during the u.torking hours. Subject to these conditions, the petitioners maA be pennitted to cany on the business, dulg taking all necessary and proper precautions to ensure that no incident of immoral actiuitg is caried on under the guise of prouiding uthole bodg massage. Miscellaneous petitions pending in all the Wit Petitions, if ang, sholl stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. "

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner further prayed this Court to pass similar orders as passed in the order dated 28.09.2021 tn W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and batch in the present writ petition also.

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appea-ring for the respondents did not dispute the said submission.

¶43

Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel appea,ring on either side and in view of order dated 28.09.2421 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and batch, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to take action in tgrms of the notification, dated 30.06.2025, and the common order dated 28.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and batch.

¶44

( I

¶45

7 . It is made clear that this order would not preclude the respondent authorities to take appropriate action against the petitioner, if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions

¶46

-^</sup>

¶47

issued by this Court uide order dated 28.O9.2021 r r W.p.No.162g1 of 2010 ald batch.

¶48